The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Mattopilos]

Now obviously due to traditional gender norms and historical prejudice there will be a large number more men than women who managed to get to the top and do great things. I do agree thought that it is demonstratably wrong to believe women are in fact unanimously more peaceful or thoughtful leaders.

It is counterproductive however to confront sexist notions with sexism. Then it just turns into a pointless mudslinging contest that gets no one anywhere. I think both sides need to figure that out at some point. Nobody feign innocence, I've seen entirely to much gender bickering all over this thread, and in some really troublesome forms.

Well I think I'm pretty innocent, other than the occasional clearly sarcastic quip.

Innocence is subjective :^)

[Galloism]

Well I think I'm pretty innocent, other than the occasional clearly sarcastic quip.

Innocence is subjective :^)

Well, innocent of that, anyway.

I destroy whole planets without regard to the sex or gender of the inhabitants.

[Mattopilos]

Innocence is subjective :^)

Well, innocent of that, anyway.

I destroy whole planets without regard to the sex or gender of the inhabitants.

Or species... Maybe they are a species like worms, that are both male and female?

[New Edom]

Henry V, Edward Longshanks, Edward III, Saladin, Suleiman the Magnificent, Murad II, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Constantine, Peter the Great, Jan Sobieski, Oda Nobunaga, Hammurabi, Selim I, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Tamurlane, Harold Hadrada, William of Normandy, Hernan Cortez, Micheiel de Ruyter, Tecumseh, Roald Amundsen, Crazy Horse, Ahuitzotl of Mexico, Tycho Brahe, Louis Pasteur, Nicholas Copernicus, James Cook, Ferdinand Magellan, Sir Isaac Brock, Samuel de Champlain, John Glenn, Germanicus, Alcibiades, Joshua L. Chamberlain, Gaius Marius, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Shaka Zulu, Leonardo da Vinci, Plato

It is not that there are no female great leaders, general, discoverrrs or inventors, artists or composers. There are a lot more men though.

However the response originally was to a post stating that women would be better leaders because they are more peaceful. So it was somewhat sarcastic, I suspect.

Now obviously due to traditional gender norms and historical prejudice there will be a large number more men than women who managed to get to the top and do great things. I do agree thought that it is demonstratably wrong to believe women are in fact unanimously more peaceful or thoughtful leaders.

It is counterproductive however to confront sexist notions with sexism. Then it just turns into a pointless mudslinging contest that gets no one anywhere. I think both sides need to figure that out at some point. Nobody feign innocence, I've seen entirely to much gender bickering all over this thread, and in some really troublesome forms.

Gabriela originally said "women would make better leaders." She also said "women would be more peaceful leaders." So I responded to the earlier one, as did others, and received no response to that at all. Then Des-Bal pointed out that more men had been effective leaders. I think that is a fair enough argument given that she suggested that women were inherently better leaders. They are clearly not or they would have overcome gender roles. You brought up an example, I countered it with more. That isn't sexism, that's simply a historical fact.

However a lot of the discussion recently has been very productive.

[Jello Biafra]

True, if you leave all of your credit card information money and jewelry in an open box on your front lawn the person who takes it is still the only person at fault is the guy who took the box. You still did something really stupid that made it much easier for someone to target you.

So victim blaming has nothing to do with rape culture.

Victim blaming with regard to rape is different with regard to (most) other crimes. If you invite Bob into your house and he steals your TV, someone might say that you should be more careful with who you invite into your house. Someone else might say that the fact that you invited Bob into your house means that his claim of you selling your TV to him (for cash) can't be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, nobody would say that the fact you invited Bob into your house in and of itself proves that you sold him your TV and that he didn't steal it.
If a woman is flirtatious with Bob and he rapes her, someone might say that she shouldn't be so flirtatious. Someone else might say that the fact that she was flirtatious means that Bob's claim that the sex was consensual can't be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. Addtionally, someone else might say that the fact that she was flirtatious is proof in and of itself that the sex was consensual.
The problem with victim blaming with regard to rape is that the actions the victim takes are used as justification for her victimization. It isn't merely the act of suggesting that she might want to take steps to protect herself.

[Jello Biafra]

Addtionally, the "women should take steps to protect themselves" crowd is rather selective in their ideas. If a woman wants to get so drunk that she passes out, she may need to take steps to protect herself - according to these people - including possibly segregating herself away from men. If a woman wants to ride the subway without risking getting groped by men, suddenly segregating herself away from men on a women-only subway car is out of the question. If she has the option of taking a women-only subway car but doesn't, and is groped by a man, would these same people say she should have taken the women-only subway car?

[Philjia]

Addtionally, the "women should take steps to protect themselves" crowd is rather selective in their ideas. If a woman wants to get so drunk that she passes out, she may need to take steps to protect herself - according to these people - including possibly segregating herself away from men. If a woman wants to ride the subway without risking getting groped by men, suddenly segregating herself away from men on a women-only subway car is out of the question. If she has the option of taking a women-only subway car but doesn't, and is groped by a man, would these same people say she should have taken the women-only subway car?

People should not be attacked. People should take steps if they do not want to be attacked. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. If they were, Yale and Chubb would be bankrupt.

[Frenline Delpha]

Addtionally, the "women should take steps to protect themselves" crowd is rather selective in their ideas. If a woman wants to get so drunk that she passes out, she may need to take steps to protect herself - according to these people - including possibly segregating herself away from men. If a woman wants to ride the subway without risking getting groped by men, suddenly segregating herself away from men on a women-only subway car is out of the question. If she has the option of taking a women-only subway car but doesn't, and is groped by a man, would these same people say she should have taken the women-only subway car?

Here's a radical idea. Don't drink so much that you pass out unless you know you have friends around or you're in your own home. Sure, if someone were to take advantage of you when you were black out drunk, then they'd a horrible scumbag. But they couldn't have taken advantage if you didn't act like an idiot and get black-out drunk around tons of strangers. That doesn't mean it's your fault you were raped, but it would have been very possible to prevent that rape. Sometimes, protecting yourself is a good idea, unless you know you have friends to protect yourself.

[Jello Biafra]

Addtionally, the "women should take steps to protect themselves" crowd is rather selective in their ideas. If a woman wants to get so drunk that she passes out, she may need to take steps to protect herself - according to these people - including possibly segregating herself away from men. If a woman wants to ride the subway without risking getting groped by men, suddenly segregating herself away from men on a women-only subway car is out of the question. If she has the option of taking a women-only subway car but doesn't, and is groped by a man, would these same people say she should have taken the women-only subway car?

People should not be attacked. People should take steps if they do not want to be attacked. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. If they were, Yale and Chubb would be bankrupt.

So women-only subway cars are acceptable steps to not be attacked? If not, why not?

Addtionally, the "women should take steps to protect themselves" crowd is rather selective in their ideas. If a woman wants to get so drunk that she passes out, she may need to take steps to protect herself - according to these people - including possibly segregating herself away from men. If a woman wants to ride the subway without risking getting groped by men, suddenly segregating herself away from men on a women-only subway car is out of the question. If she has the option of taking a women-only subway car but doesn't, and is groped by a man, would these same people say she should have taken the women-only subway car?

Here's a radical idea. Don't drink so much that you pass out unless you know you have friends around or you're in your own home. Sure, if someone were to take advantage of you when you were black out drunk, then they'd a horrible scumbag. But they couldn't have taken advantage if you didn't act like an idiot and get black-out drunk around tons of strangers. That doesn't mean it's your fault you were raped, but it would have been very possible to prevent that rape. Sometimes, protecting yourself is a good idea, unless you know you have friends to protect yourself.

Isn't using a women-only subway car a form of self-protection? Is it an acceptable one?

[Philjia]

People should not be attacked. People should take steps if they do not want to be attacked. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. If they were, Yale and Chubb would be bankrupt.

So women-only subway cars are acceptable steps to not be attacked? If not, why not?

Sure, why not, as long as they don't just go unused?

[Frenline Delpha]

People should not be attacked. People should take steps if they do not want to be attacked. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. If they were, Yale and Chubb would be bankrupt.

So women-only subway cars are acceptable steps to not be attacked? If not, why not?

Here's a radical idea. Don't drink so much that you pass out unless you know you have friends around or you're in your own home. Sure, if someone were to take advantage of you when you were black out drunk, then they'd a horrible scumbag. But they couldn't have taken advantage if you didn't act like an idiot and get black-out drunk around tons of strangers. That doesn't mean it's your fault you were raped, but it would have been very possible to prevent that rape. Sometimes, protecting yourself is a good idea, unless you know you have friends to protect yourself.

Isn't using a women-only subway car a form of self-protection? Is it an acceptable one?

If a private company wants to have women-only cars, I could care less. However, if the government starts providing them, I'd raise an issue.

[Des-Bal]

Here's a radical idea. Don't drink so much that you pass out unless you know you have friends around or you're in your own home. Sure, if someone were to take advantage of you when you were black out drunk, then they'd a horrible scumbag. But they couldn't have taken advantage if you didn't act like an idiot and get black-out drunk around tons of strangers. That doesn't mean it's your fault you were raped, but it would have been very possible to prevent that rape. Sometimes, protecting yourself is a good idea, unless you know you have friends to protect yourself.

Maybe amend that to don't drink until you pass out because it's not fun or safe to pass out. Passing out is not the fun part of drinking and it can be dangerous regardless of what other people do.

[Frenline Delpha]

Here's a radical idea. Don't drink so much that you pass out unless you know you have friends around or you're in your own home. Sure, if someone were to take advantage of you when you were black out drunk, then they'd a horrible scumbag. But they couldn't have taken advantage if you didn't act like an idiot and get black-out drunk around tons of strangers. That doesn't mean it's your fault you were raped, but it would have been very possible to prevent that rape. Sometimes, protecting yourself is a good idea, unless you know you have friends to protect yourself.

Maybe amend that to don't drink until you pass out because it's not fun or safe to pass out. Passing out is not the fun part of drinking and it can be dangerous regardless of what other people do.

I wouldn't know, but fair enough.

[Knask]

Addtionally, the "women should take steps to protect themselves" crowd is rather selective in their ideas. If a woman wants to get so drunk that she passes out, she may need to take steps to protect herself - according to these people - including possibly segregating herself away from men. If a woman wants to ride the subway without risking getting groped by men, suddenly segregating herself away from men on a women-only subway car is out of the question. If she has the option of taking a women-only subway car but doesn't, and is groped by a man, would these same people say she should have taken the women-only subway car?

Here's a radical idea. Don't drink so much that you pass out unless you know you have friends around or you're in your own home.

Absolutely.

Though don't pass out even when you have friends around. You never know if they'll take advantage, and most people actually know their rapist. And it often takes place in the home as well, so...

Don't drink so much you get impaired and can't defend yourself properly. Which is a risk once you start drinking, so...

Don't drink. Anywhere. At any time. Because they couldn't have taken advantage if you didn't act like an idiot and drink alcohol. If you hadn't drunk alcohol you could have prevented the rape. (though many people are sober when raped, so...)

[The Grene Knyght]

Here's a radical idea. Don't drink so much that you pass out unless you know you have friends around or you're in your own home.

Absolutely.

Though don't pass out even when you have friends around. You never know if they'll take advantage, and most people actually know their rapist. And it often takes place in the home as well, so...

Don't drink so much you get impaired and can't defend yourself properly. Which is a risk once you start drinking, so...

Don't drink. Anywhere. At any time. Because they couldn't have taken advantage if you didn't act like an idiot and drink alcohol. If you hadn't drunk alcohol you could have prevented the rape. (though many people are sober when raped, so...)

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but sometimes on NS, you just can't tell...

[Des-Bal]

Absolutely.

Though don't pass out even when you have friends around. You never know if they'll take advantage, and most people actually know their rapist. And it often takes place in the home as well, so...

Don't drink so much you get impaired and can't defend yourself properly. Which is a risk once you start drinking, so...

Don't drink. Anywhere. At any time. Because they couldn't have taken advantage if you didn't act like an idiot and drink alcohol. If you hadn't drunk alcohol you could have prevented the rape. (though many people are sober when raped, so...)

People can break into lock houses, no point in locking your house.

[Mattopilos]

Absolutely.

Though don't pass out even when you have friends around. You never know if they'll take advantage, and most people actually know their rapist. And it often takes place in the home as well, so...

Don't drink so much you get impaired and can't defend yourself properly. Which is a risk once you start drinking, so...

Don't drink. Anywhere. At any time. Because they couldn't have taken advantage if you didn't act like an idiot and drink alcohol. If you hadn't drunk alcohol you could have prevented the rape. (though many people are sober when raped, so...)

People can break into lock houses, no point in locking your house.

Now you are getting the sarcasm! Let me try:

People can crash cars, so we better not have cars.

[New Edom]

People can break into lock houses, no point in locking your house.

Now you are getting the sarcasm! Let me try:

People can crash cars, so we better not have cars.

The world can be an evil place. It's that simple. Always be aware, always be wary, you'll probably live longer. If people want to imagine that things can be so nice that they never have to do this, they can go ahead and dream of rainbows and unicorns.

[Hetalia Dakota 2 II]

Abyone here know anything about the process in the United States for a transwomen to get prescribed Progesterone?

[Frenline Delpha]

Abyone here know anything about the process in the United States for a transwomen to get prescribed Progesterone?

You want this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=396284

They's probably have someone who knows.

[Hetalia Dakota 2 II]

Abyone here know anything about the process in the United States for a transwomen to get prescribed Progesterone?

You want this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=396284

They's probably have someone who knows.

Ah, you know I aimed for the LGBT thread and thought this was it, I appologize. >.>

[Frenline Delpha]

You want this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=396284

They's probably have someone who knows.

Ah, you know I aimed for the LGBT thread and thought this was it, I appologize. >.>

No problem.

[Liberonscien]

Anyways, would be good to get back onto the topic of feminism.

I may be in the minority here but I don't really assume "male as default". I assume "person as default".

My apologies to the cats and boats of NS.

I guess that makes sense. I hate the comment after that though, because people seriously use that kind of idea to be reductive on the issue of gender. Obviously you are joking, of course.

My apologies.

Yes, the underlined portion was a joke. The rest of my post was completely serious.

[Chessmistress]

Chess mistress said I should post these questions I have for her to this thread so she can answer

I'm going to answer, it took some time because I have other things to do IRL.
Thank you for your patience.

Why would you say you describe yourself as a radical feminist as opposed to simply a feminist?

I actually describe myself as Feminist, pure and simple, very often, but I have, quite often, to specify "Radical Feminist" because I don't want to be confused with the so-called "libral feminists" who are pro-surrogacy, pro-prostitution, pro-pornography.
Actually, I could define myself as being both a Radical Feminist and a Difference Feminist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_feminism
I don't use the latter definition in this forum because it seems it's extremely uncommon in USA and so it could led to further misunderstandings.

You say you have a strong sense of justice. Is this true? What other ideas do you have where your strong sense of justice comes into play?

Economy could be a good example. I support the Nordic Model when it comes at economy, and a strong welfare.

You say you are "moderately TERF". Could you tell me what your views on the trans issue exactly?

That trans people can be good allies for Feminists, on average even more than men, and that they're women after a full transition.

Could you tell me about gender abolitionism? Do you really think it's possible?

Gender is a social construct, meant to define a dominant class and a subservient class.
Every social construct can be abolished.

And if you do, do you plan on having children? Will you teach these idea to your children?

I already have a child, he's too young for those things.

If you support the death penalty for rapists, do you support the death penalty for other serious offenders?

It depends by the severity of the offence.

Could you tell me about your ideas about population control? Is it common for feminists to believe in population control?

Population control isn't a Feminist topic, it refers to policies promoting a light and sustainable decrease of the population to a more acceptable level, more sustainable by actual natural resources.
It's basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_planning
China's "one-child policy" was harmful, because it has led to selective abortions against females, and one child per couple isn'tan healthy policy because on the long run it means a situation where young people are half than old people.
On the other hand, a "two-children policy" could led to an actual healthy and slow, progressive, decrease, since the replacement rate is 2.1-2.2 children per couple while 2 children per couple is a little less.

How would you get rid of heteronormativity? What would a society without heteronormativity look like?

A society without heteronormativity is basically a society where none is supposed to be heterosexual by default.
We can rid out of heteronormativity mainly by fighting against social stigma against homosexuality and bisexuality, and also by encouraging people to experiment their sexuality (personally I think that bisexuality is much more common that most people think).

What is it about pornography that you object to? Is it the principal of the act or do you think it is often exploitative to women?

Pornography is a from of rape because the "sex" is coercied through economical blackmail, it isn't very different from prostitution though prostitution is even worse.
Pornography encourages men to view and treat women as sexual objects.
Most pornography encourage violence against women.

You say you advocate "on going verbal consent". How has that played out in your own relationships?

That's a too much personal question.

[Galloism]

[

What is it about pornography that you object to? Is it the principal of the act or do you think it is often exploitative to women?

Pornography is a from of rape because the "sex" is coercied through economical blackmail, it isn't very different from prostitution though prostitution is even worse.
Pornography encourages men to view and treat women as sexual objects.
Most pornography encourage violence against women.

For those listening at home - remember that increased access to pornography is correlated with a reduction in sexual violence, and people who watch porn have more gender egalitarian attitudes than those who don't.

We've studied this. It's science.


Chess, ignoring the data doesn't make it go away. I know you're aware of the science. We've discussed it, yet you continue to peddle scientifically discredited regressive talking points as if they have something to do with actual reality.